Cognitive Factors That

Influence Jury Decision

Making

SERIAL POSITIONING

EFFECT&

Jury Decision makingAremethy Welsh

Can the order in which evidence is

presented effect the verdict?We learned in class about the primacy effect:

If you hear a long list of words, it is more likely that you will remember the words you heard first (at the beginning of the list) than words that occurred in the middle

Also we learned about the recency effect:

that when people are asked to recall in any order the items on a list, those that come at the end of the list are more likely to be recalled than the others

So far we have seen these concepts applied to lists of words.

Can they be observed in the way juries make decisions?

What lawyers seem to think.

“A reminder of the importance of primacy and recency effects.

The primacy effect is the phenomenon of remembering

information presented first. It results from increased rehearsal of

early information when other, potentially distracting, information

is not yet presented. The recency effect is enhanced memory for

information presented last. Due to recent presentation, people

can easily access the information from memory. Understanding

primacy and recency effects are essential for attorneys when

structuring a trial. To enhance jurors' memory for important case

facts, communicate key facts early, then emphasize them

repeatedly to aid jurors' rehearsal. Present "surprises" at the end

of your case so that they will be remembered accurately. “-

Magnus Research Consultants & graphics

R. Enescu and A. Kuhn

In the experiment conducted, a DVD of a mock trial was

sent to 207 different judges. The trials were all the same

except the order of the witness testimonies.

There were six possible combinations

Forensic expert: Examined paint samples of the vehicles

Eyewitness : a teacher who said she saw different car

involved

Alibi witness: said that they were having breakfast with

the defendant.

Are lawyers correct?

Alibi witness 1st

(20%)

Alibi witness 2nd

(25%)

Alibi witness 3rd

(9%)

Limitations

• In Switzerland there are no prosecutors allowed to speak

at trials like the one featured in Enescu and Kuhn’s

experiment.

• The amount of judges that responded was limited

• The experiment looked at judges’ decision making and not

juries.

References

Enescu, R., & Kuhn, A. (2012). Serial effects of evidence on legal decision-making. European Journal Of Psychology Applied To Legal Context, 4(2), 99-118.

Greenlees, I., Hall, B., Filby, W., Thelwell, R., Buscombe, R., & Smith, M. J. (2009). Warnings given to observers can eliminate order effects. Psychology of Sport and Exercise, 10(2), 300-303.

Primacy and recency effects. (n.d). Magnus Research Consultants and Graphics Web Site. Retrieved February, 27, 2012, from http://www.magnusweb.com

•

Group Think Syndrome

Andrew G. Kim

THE GROUPTHINK SYNDROME

Def.: “It refers to the tendency of cohesive

groups not to examine critically all aspects

of a decision or problem the group is

considering. It represents a specific failure

in the group's critical thinking process-

failure to express doubts, disagreements,

and conflict within the group. As a result,

the group's decision is flawed because it is

made with partial information that has not

been examined carefully.”

Group

Cohesiveness

• Cohesiveness: is how well each

individual get along with the

other members in the group

• Each jury member is tasked with

an important responsibilities,

which means their individual

identity is merged in the group

identity

• “High levels of social

cohesiveness tend to facilitate

the development of groupthink,

while high levels of task

cohesiveness are inhibiting”

• This is where each jury member

is not allowed to tell

anyone/media about the case

they are in

• Due to this behavior each

individual separate from other

individuals, which can affect the

establishment of cohesiveness

among the group

Insulation of the

group

Lack of a Tradition of

Impartial Leadership

• Is an absence of appreciate

leadership traditions

• The leader of the group uses his

or her power to influence the

member of the jury

• This requires the group to adopt

methodical information and

appraisal

• This is required because there

was no certain norms

established

Lack of Norms

Requiring Methodical

Procedures

Homogeneity of the

Members’ Social

• There are two groups in the jury

the “ingroup” and the “outgroup”

• The ingroup are those who

belong in the group

• While the outgroup is are those

who do not belong in the group

• High stress level can affect the

jury decisions

• Which affects their self esteem

• Low self esteem is induced by

situational factors

• High Stress

and Low Self

Esteem

STEREOTYPES AND

JUROR DECISION-

MAKING

Mardee Hopper

Gender Stereotypes

Guys and Edens (2003, 2006)

• Two versions of a non-intentional manslaughter scenario

• Male defendant: Robert Hill

• Female defendant: Rachel Hill

• Both: victim’s gender unidentified

• Listen to scenario, then view a testimony from a fictitious expert

Guys and Edens (2003, 2006)

• Answer the question: Guilty or Not Guilty?

• What should the term be?

• Incarceration or Probation

• Specify the length of term sentence

Harassment

Wiener (1995)

• Two written scenarios

• Workplace harassment to one male and one female

• Reasonable worker vs. reasonable woman

• Women are more likely to:

• deem the conduct unwelcome, severe, and pervasive

• see the conduct as negatively affecting the plaintiff’s work

performance and psychological wellbeing

• see the scenario as typical working environment

Racial Stereotypes

Own-Race Bias

• Victim, defendant, jury composition

• Capital punishment cases

• Defendant: important consideration

• Victim: some instances, more important

Lynch and Haney, 2000

• Capital trials

• 402 jury-eligible participants

• race of the defendant and the victim was varied

• Poor understanding of instructions: more likely to sentence defendant to

death

• Black defendant, White victim

• 68% of sentences for death; 32% life without parole.

• White defendant, Black victim

• 36% of sentences for death; 64 % life without parole

Jury Composition

Bernard, 1979

• College student mock juries

• ten 12-person juries of differing racial compositions

• White jurors: more likely to vote guilty than were Black jurors when

defendant was Black

• All-White jury, Black defendant: only jury to reach a unanimous guilty

verdict

Not just the Black/White dichotomy

• Trinidad

• Latinos

Power of Conformity

Judy M.

• “The Power of Conformity” (Asch, 1955)

• Social Norms

• The Task: There are 7 other participants already seated in the

room when you arrive. You are seated at the end of the row. The

experimenter then reveals a pair of cards and asks you to

determine which of the 3 comparison lines is the same length as

the standard line.

•

“To Help or Not to Help” (Darley & Latane, 1968)

Social Influence

Evaluation Apprehension

The Task: Students in an introductory psychology class were told that they

were being studied to how students adjust to university life in a highly

competitive, urban environment, as well as what kinds of personal

problems they were experiencing. These students were asked to talk about

these problems with other students, but to avoid embarrassment and

discomfort they would be in separate rooms and would speak with each

other through an intercom. This intercom would let students speak one at a

time and each student would have 2 minutes at a time to speak.

The Results: As the number of others that

participants believed were part of the study

increased, the percentage who reported the

seizure quickly, decreased dramatically. All the

participants in group 1 reported the emergency,

only 85% of group 2 did, and 60% of group 3

did.